 |
A New Dual Federalism
| |
| | Unformatted Document Text:
NEW DUAL FEDERALISM
3
I. INTRODUCTION
When viewed from the bottom up, the activities of U.S. local, state, and federal
governments appear to intertwine so closely as to make theoretical generalizations about functional responsibility virtually impossible. The current safety net of cash assistance for poor families and individuals, to take one example, consists of one state administered, but wholly federally financed program with uniform, national benefits (Food Stamps); one centralized entitlement program that encourages state supplementation (Supplemental Security Income for the blind, disabled, and elderly); one block grant to states with various federal strings but no floor under benefits (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families); and a few remaining state-run and state-financed programs of “general assistance” or “general relief”. Common sense says that such a motley array of intergovernmental arrangements must arise from peculiarities of politics and accidents of history rather than any discernible rules of functional assignment.
At the same time, when viewed from the top down, public spending in the U.S. does
admit patterns of intergovernmental sorting. As Figure 1 illustrates, the federal share of government spending on means-tested transfers to persons grew steadily throughout much of the 20
th
century, while the state and local share shrank. Over the same period, federal grants
to state and local governments increasingly focused on redistribution to the poor at the expense of economic development-related activities such as transportation and agriculture. Such evidence suggests the possibility of an underlying logic to long-term trends in the federal-state-local division of labor.
Figure 1: Spending on Means-Tested
Transfers to Persons
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1
9
2
9
1
9
3
6
1
9
4
3
1
9
5
0
1
9
5
7
1
9
6
4
1
9
7
1
1
9
7
8
1
9
8
5
1
9
9
2
1
9
9
9
Year
S
h
a
re
o
f
T
o
ta
l
Federal
State & Local
|
| |
| |
|
|
NEW DUAL FEDERALISM
3
I. INTRODUCTION
When viewed from the bottom up, the activities of U.S. local, state, and federal
governments appear to intertwine so closely as to make theoretical generalizations about
functional responsibility virtually impossible. The current safety net of cash assistance for
poor families and individuals, to take one example, consists of one state administered, but
wholly federally financed program with uniform, national benefits (Food Stamps); one
centralized entitlement program that encourages state supplementation (Supplemental
Security Income for the blind, disabled, and elderly); one block grant to states with various
federal strings but no floor under benefits (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families); and a
few remaining state-run and state-financed programs of “general assistance” or “general
relief”. Common sense says that such a motley array of intergovernmental arrangements must
arise from peculiarities of politics and accidents of history rather than any discernible rules of
functional assignment.
At the same time, when viewed from the top down, public spending in the U.S. does
admit patterns of intergovernmental sorting. As Figure 1 illustrates, the federal share of
government spending on means-tested transfers to persons grew steadily throughout much of
the 20
th
century, while the state and local share shrank. Over the same period, federal grants
to state and local governments increasingly focused on redistribution to the poor at the
expense of economic development-related activities such as transportation and agriculture.
Such evidence suggests the possibility of an underlying logic to long-term trends in the
federal-state-local division of labor.
Figure 1: Spending on Means-Tested
Transfers to Persons
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1
9
2
9
1
9
3
6
1
9
4
3
1
9
5
0
1
9
5
7
1
9
6
4
1
9
7
1
1
9
7
8
1
9
8
5
1
9
9
2
1
9
9
9
Year
S
h
a
r
e
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
Federal
State & Local
|
|
 Convention | | Need a solution for abstract management? All Academic can help! Contact us today to find out how our system can help your annual meeting. | | Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. | | Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! | | Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! | | Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. | | Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! | | Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! | | Click here for more information. |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
